Dear Nikolas Before you become an intolerant LEGO figure rampant. May I suggest that you take a look at my book "Money and the Art of Losing Control". It is definitely NOT a book about have to behave normal or "universal", but a novel based on some conclusions from Pirsig's metaphysics. It's free on iTunes bookshop, paperback available at Createspace.
all the best Jan-Anders > 12 dec 2014 kl. 12:57 skrev Blodgett, Nikolas <[email protected]>: > > you know, when I was typing it I was thinking about exactly how it was > worded and I came to the same conclusion. What I was trying to say I think > was that humans are all so relatively similar that we can count on finding > a 'general consensus', as we all have the same kind of senses; and possibly > even the same brain structures, such as a specific r/l hemisphere because > of 'standing up' and having language/a dominant hand, etc. So when we all > get different "histories, educations, likes/dislikes", they are all the > same languages and cultural contexts in large swaths. Most people tend to > be more similar than we think, and I think its important to realize how > similar we are across all of humanity (as well as how we are different) - > so that we can extract general nature principles, as scientific factor > analysis can sometimes be capable of. As for subjective proof, I recently > read (or am reading, i never finished... the library is pissed) a book by > Thomas Nagel 'A View from Nowhere' and I keep coming back to this one quote > in my notebook that i think captures what Im trying to say (its at the > beginning of the chapter on morals, so hes recapping subject/object > discussions before hand) > > "Again let me stress that this is not to be understood on the model of > perception of features of the external world. The subject matter of our > investigation is how to live, aned the process of ethical thought is one of > motivational discovery. The fact that people can come to agreement on > answers which they regard as objective suggests that when they step outside > of their particular individual perspectives they call into operation a > common evaluative faculty whose correct functioning provides the answers, > even though it can also malfunction and be distorted by other influences. > It is not a question of bringing the mind into correspondence with an > external reality which acts causally on it, but of reordering the mind > itself in accordance with demands of its own external view of itself" > > > As I see it, its like he mentions later, after ethics comes into the > picture "its a question of if we think everyone is equally important or > unimportant. I tend to think the answer is somewhere in between". But > before ethics is a question, we must realize that all language is > arbitrary, just how much of what we do is completely automatic, and how > that 'common evaluative faculty' -because it is influenced by those factors > and the ones you mentioned - tend to make people much more commonly > grounded than they think they are. I think theres a bit of an egocentric > view humanity has of itself sometimes (maybe just a little, like being the > center of the universe - or 'god ordained to rule over all nature') > So i guess i agree with you in a way, I find my thoughts are usually very > open to flexability. gotta stay loose! > >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Nikolas, >> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Blodgett, Nikolas >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Im new to this board, and as its my first time I feel an introduction is >> in >>> order (I am at the tail end of a two/three week research process for a >>> psych paper, which was actually due two/three weeks ago, but I couldn't >>> help myself. >> >> Dan: >> Welcome! >> >> NB: >>> I have made alot of progress with my personal theory, because >>> of this one paper and the timing in my life contextually.) In any case I >>> will only post ONE of my notes to myself, despite my urge to regurgitate >>> everything out all at once. The bottom line is I am going to (try to) >> keep >>> this short (its a long note, about a half page but relevant to the >>> question). Anywho, first things first: a quick intro (this is straight >> off >>> one of my index cards, and also relates to my current theory; so it >> really >>> serves as a dual-intro) - This all began with Zen and the Art of >>> Motorcycle Maintenance. Robert M. Pirsig and his Metaphysics of Quality >>> began my first epiphanies and changed my life. It started the seed which >>> began crystallization (I love that metaphor of his, I encountered the >> term >>> while reading about Baddeley's Working Memory model which separated the >>> processes into 'crystallized' and 'fluid'; coincidences like that amaze >> me, >>> even though Im pretty sure they are illusions, it depends on how you look >>> at it). >> >> Dan: >> I read ZMM in 1974 and it made quite an impression on me too, but then >> the reality of life came along and sidetracked me for a lot of years. >> I think my first copy of ZMM is still sitting upon my brother's >> bookshelf. I loaned it to him some 40 years ago but he hasn't gotten >> around to reading it yet. I'll give him another 20 years and then I am >> asking for it back. >> >> I didn't realize Robert Pirsig had written a second novel until >> sometime in 1996 or maybe '97. Anyway, not long after I read Lila I >> discovered this group though at the time it was known as the Lila >> Squad. In 1998, Bodvar Skutvik asked me to write the Lila Squad story. >> I had no idea what he meant or how to go about it. Long story short, >> with Bodvar's encouragement and the help of Robert Pirsig I put >> together Lila's Child in 2002. It still boggles my mind that the same >> man who wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance helped me with >> that book. >> >> NB: >>> My global knowledge structure began taking shape, continued right >>> up through insight/The Eureka! Effect (Jung, Beeman), coming across the >>> 'lateralization of hemispherical function' (which I believe relates to >>> this, but Im still working on it), into (school and) philosophy and >>> everything I learned how to question, up through psychology and cognitive >>> science, all the little things in philosophy and psych that (I found) >>> agreed with me, such as Geiger and the 'third man effect' & >> 'bicameralism' >>> (I was absolutely blown away the other day when I read the other letter >> on >>> moq.org to Paul Turner and he mentioned Jaynes' book; needless to say >> the >>> year long gap and sudden reaquaintance with my past theoretical origins >>> was shocking), and now Gazzaniga, his split-brain work and cognitive >>> neuropsychology (see also, The Master and his Emissary; similar to G's >>> 'left-brain interpreter' which Pirsig had mentioned in the first letter >> to >>> Bodvar, the connections are truly endless; but then again its not >>> surprising I followed this path so far), as I grow and develop my ideas >> the >>> hits just keep on coming as I tweak my metatheory >> >> Dan: >> My own personal theory: Once a person begins making connections it is >> only a matter of time before they begin to blossom into their own >> light. By adding their own individual voice to the multitude of those >> who have gone before, whole new vistas open up for them. That seems to >> be the power of intellect... not to simply regurgitate the old but to >> weave a tapestry of something new. >> >> NB: >>> I hope that wasnt too painful, I had to get that out .... >>> heres one of my notes about subject/object ....."The whole of reality, as >>> well as the infinite many possibilities of which it is composed, like a >>> quality piece of music, art, or even a beautiful math theorem/equation, >>> gives rise in humanity to a universally specific perception for every >>> particular sensation. Experiencing stimuli through the senses is a >>> subjective phenomenon on which depends any and all objective knowledge >> and >>> truth, which seems, in effect, to diminish its validity. This is false >>> because of the majority, consensus, or 'common sense' which, when a >>> universal aspect of perception is arrived at by humanity, is itself >>> subjective proof of an objective reality to concepts, and the system >>> therefore 'becomes weightless' (as Baudrillard puts it anyway). Our >>> intuition is based on our sensations; logic creates, through its >>> interaction with our base-most unconscious intuitive processing, all our >>> truth, knowledge, facts and theories/hypotheses, etc......" >>> -so there it is, also it is interesting to note that the paper which has >>> kept me awake for weeks has everything to do with chasing what Pirsig >>> mentioned about lateralization; I considered it a great lead, and it has >>> been. Im lucky Im in school doing something I love, because otherwise >> this >>> process would be exhausting instead of invigorating .... and I wouldn't >>> have found this either! >> >> Dan: >> If I am reading this right, I tend to disagree with it. Each of us >> interprets the world via our own personal histories... the culture >> where we grow up, our education or lack of it, those we choose to >> associate with, our likes and our dislikes, and on and on. There is no >> subjective proof of an objective reality. Our intuition is not only >> based upon our senses but what stands behind the senses. As such, all >> of us are unique in that we perceive the world in our own fashion. >> >> Thank you and good night, >> >> Dan >> >> http://www.danglover.com >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
